I have said before that I am sometimes surprised at the level of invictive comments doled out by some people on the threads.

As an old hippy, I find this type of behaviour disappointing, however I don't in all honesty think these comments are meant to be as rude, and sometimes cruel, as the specific posts would suggest.

Surely this is just another manifestation of people posting comments across all areas of the internet that they would never say to a persons face.

I am on record as favouring Blotchy as the killer, however I am all too aware that my views of people criticising the Blotchy theory are influenced by my confirmation basis.

I go on the basis that all serious posters to the boards try and factor in the existence of confirmation basis when writing their contributions to the boards.

Unfortunately I think that the rudeness will probably continue unabated, simply because it seems "de rigueur" for most people posting on the internet, not just these boards.

In my experience, most arguments can be resolved amicably over copious amounts of beer.

A particularly Glasgow approach to things I will admit.

But it works!

Never been to Glasgow. Been to Edinburgh, Pittenweem, the Hebrides, Spean Bridge and so on. Does that help?

Just as the case is with Kattrup, you have not spelt out what you think, but it seems you may think that I should accept being told that my views are tainted on account of me having an agenda. Is that about correct, or am I misunderstanding you?

By the way, I am not a beer man myself. But I nevertheless get on with most people anyway. Whisky and wine may have something to do with that.

Who has actually told you that your "views are tainted because you have an agenda"? Nobody has. It might have been implied, but an implication is not the same as "being told".

It helps if one sticks to the facts.

Yes, so let´s do that! Then we will see that you wrote "The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue". That is something that is an exact quotation, and the meaning is impossible to misinterpret: You state, not as an implication but as a fact, that you know the primary reason why I do not "acknowledge the differences", and that this reason lies in my having an agenda. THere is no implication at all invlved, it is all totally straightforward, with no "perhapses", no "possiblys" no "maybes".
You effectively reccommend that less trust in invested in me, since I have that "agenda" you speak of. That is the sum of it. And now, you are too much of a coward to admit it. It "might have been implied", you say, but there is no implication at all, as I have shown you - there is an unequivocal statement involving that you know the reason for my stance. There´s no way around that, Gareth. The time may have come to realize that, eh?

Furthermore, please tell me what you think is my "agenda"! Is it to mislead by lying about Lechmere? Or is it to inform about him? Or is it to discuss the case? Pray tell me! For somebody who was not aware that I HAVE an agenda, it should be intersting to hear. You yourself state, à la Mother Teresa, that YOU have no agenda, so why is it that you think that I have one?

As is so often the case, you resort to semantics, and you point out that nobody has used THE EXACT wording I employ. Which is just ridiculous. You can´t say that the reason I don´t agree with you is because I have an agenda, and then say that nobody has said that this agenda is tainting my views IN THOSE EXACT WORDS. There is nobody stupid enough around to accept that kind of arguing. Not a soul. We can all see and understand what it means when somebody says that another posters ideas are not the result of measured and balanced thinking but instead of an agenda.

And all the while, you duck the questions you are asked, and refuse to answer them.

Here we go again, therefore:

Prove to me how you know that my reason for not seeing the differences the way you do lies in me having an agenda to pursue. Just how did you reach that conclusion? Why do you think you are at liberty to tarnish me by claiming that I am primarily agendadriven when I disagree with you? If I had not been a Lechmere supporter, do you actually think that I would have agreed with you?

And a new question: If it had been the case - but we have seen it never was - that you "only" implied that I am agenda-ridden in my thinking, then what business had you to do so and what proof can you offer to substantiate it?

Let´s have some answers from you instead of having to watch you run like a rabbit, Gareth. It´s unbecoming and it takes up a lot of unmotivated space out here.

Yes, so let´s do that! Then we will see that you wrote "The primary reason why you don't acknowledge the significance of these differences is because there's an agenda to pursue". That is something that is an exact quotation, and the meaning is impossible to misinterpret

So quote things, then - don't interpret and assert your interpretation as if it were truth. Nobody told you that your "views were tainted".

Quote:

Furthermore, please tell me what you think is my "agenda"! Is it to mislead by lying about Lechmere? Or is it to inform about him? Or is it to discuss the case? Pray tell me!

Your agenda is that all roads must lead to Lechmere, even to the extent of injecting him into unrelated threads so that you can go off on your hobby-horse again.

Quote:

As is so often the case, you resort to semantics, and you point out that nobody has used THE EXACT wording I employ. Which is just ridiculous.

It's not "ridiculous" and it's not "semantics" to insist that we stick to the facts, rather than presenting beliefs and opinions as if they were facts.

Quote:

And all the while, you duck the questions you are asked, and refuse to answer them.... Let´s have some answers from you instead of having to watch you run like a rabbit, Gareth.

Nobody's ducking or running. I'm not well and I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to waste on such things.

I don't think it was very gracious, perhaps we should read the exchange again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

That is what I interpret as being unfair and misleading. And it all owes to your disability/unwilingness to see beyond the surface.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elamarna

It's inability, not disability by the way. However that assumes you are not saying I am mentally disabled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

And it´s upcoming, not up coming by the way...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elarmarna

My typo was auto correct,but still means the same.
Yours involved two different concepts. Inability is not the same as disability. It could be viewed as a very serious offence term. I assumed it was a typo or maybe the fact that English is not your first language.
Why a simple sorry, could not be given rather than that response, I fail to understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman's replies in bold

My typo was auto correct,but still means the same.

Yes, I was just catching onto your funny little game of correcting people, and since autocorrection is something that we can mend, I think the responsibility lies with you anyway. It should make for a grand future if we start adding these things. Good inititiative!

Yours involved two different concepts. Inability is not the same as disability.

Yes, I know that, but since I am not using my native language, I sometimes miss out.

It could be viewed as a very serious offence term. I assumed it was a typo or maybe the fact that English is not your first language.
Correct on the latter score!

Why a simple sorry, could not be given rather than that response, I fail to understand.

It may have something to do with then overall tone of this discussion - of course, I realize that I alone are to blame for it, but nevertheless.

So is that gracious - let alone acknowledgement of your mistake? "I realize that I alone are to blame for it, but nevertheless."

Considering what I interpret as a joking remark to me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

I am unable/disabled to see it, but I´m sure you can explain.

(emphasis added)

perhaps I was too kind in my initial assesment that you actually acknowledged Elamarna's point.

Relevant? Well, considering your high standards for others, certain proverbs about stones and glass houses or pots and kettles come to mind:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

I am all for a civilized debate, but I am totally against one where such things are said, and then not retracted. If it had been retracted and if there had been an admittance that it should never have been said in the first place, this thread would have been a mere three posts long:

-That was a dumb thing to say.
-Yes, I know, sorry about that.
-Oh, okay then.

As for my original post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fisherman

Now, can you tell me what you are trying to say with this?

I don't think it will do much good to try to explain, if you are indeed (somewhat surprisingly) unable to understand my post's relevance, since the quote, in my opinion, speaks for itself.
But in brief: the remark, which you so vehemently perceive as belittling, is in my opinion similar in tone and content to remarks you yourself make about others.

So quote things, then - don't interpret and assert your interpretation as if it were truth. Nobody told you that your "views were tainted".
Your agenda is that all roads must lead to Lechmere, even to the extent of injecting him into unrelated threads so that you can go off on your hobby-horse again.It's not "ridiculous" and it's not "semantics" to insist that we stick to the facts, rather than presenting beliefs and opinions as if they were facts.Nobody's ducking or running. I'm not well and I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to waste on such things.

Hi sam
Sorry to hear your not feeling well.
If you don’t mind me asking is it serious?

And I hope you are feeling better soon! : )

__________________"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline